Upload
jeffreysegal
View
32
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Reflection on teaching
Citation preview
Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching
Page 1 of 5
Reflective journal, a case of my teaching Table of Contents Introduction 1 Narrative of the learning session 1 Evaluation of teaching and discussion of ideas raised in the course 2 Teaching on multiple levels 2 Pedagogical content knowledge 3 How learning was monitored 3 Current thoughts on teaching practice 4 References 5 Introduction This case study explores a learning session, which took place towards the end of my
placement in semester 1 this year. It begins with a narrative of the learning session and
an evaluation of teaching. Then follows an indication of how learning was monitored
before the case concludes with a discussion of my current thoughts on teaching
practice.
Narrative of the learning session I had been teaching a unit on separating mixtures to year 7 science students for about a
month. In this learning session, students devised and ran a practical to separate a
mixture of iron filings, sand, bark, salt and gravel. As a class, we brainstormed a general
approach. First we discussed the mixtures components, to help decide which
separation techniques would be appropriate and whether we needed to perform the
techniques in any specific order. Questions I used to drive the discussion included:
Are any of the substances soluble?
What is a key difference between bark and sand?
Weve decided were going to add water to make the salt dissolve, the sand sink and
the bark float. Will it be easier to use magnetic separation for the iron filings before or
after we add the water?
Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching
Page 2 of 5
The lesson alternated between whole class discussion and small group work as the
students carried out each separation technique and then came back to their desks to
reflect on what they had done and to discuss the next technique. Students suggestions
were trialed in front of the whole class. For example, one student thought we could add
water first and then perform magnetic separation to remove the iron filings. After trying it
out, he realised that magnetic separation would work better on the original dry mixture.
While the groups were performing their separation techniques, I roamed the classroom,
probing students understanding of what they were doing and assisting as needed. After
finally evaporating the water, which had been added to the mixture, all the groups had
separated the five components of the mixture with differing levels of purity. We
discussed ways in which we could have improved our results, for example by repeating
magnetic separation to remove even more iron filings.
Evaluation of teaching and discussion of ideas raised in the course
Teaching on multiple levels
Considering this was my first foray into teaching high school science, I think this
learning session was quite successful. One idea that has been suggested in this
General Science unit is learning to teach on multiple levels (Keast & Marangio, 2014).
In the learning session described above I was operating on several levels. On the
surface, there was the lesson content; getting the students to design and implement
their own practical. This worked well and the process of the practical evolved organically
from class discussions.
On another level, at the same time as I was teaching the whole class, I sought to
individualise my teaching to match the students personalities, strengths and
challenges. For example there was one student, who had missed many lessons and
who had a tendency to be disengaged when in the classroom. I purposefully involved
this student by asking him to be the class scribe and asking him to assist with some of
the separation techniques trialed in front of the class. There was another student, who
struggles with low self esteem. I specifically chose relevant questions, which I knew he
could answer. In her comments, my mentor wrote You have really boosted Js
confidence and encouraged him along the way (J. Nour, personal communication, May,
Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching
Page 3 of 5
22, 2014). Using this approach, a normally disengaged and disinterested student
became an active member of his practical group.
On yet another level, I was experimenting with the way I could favourably influence the
class dynamic by the way I grouped the students and the way I worked with the groups.
In some cases this was no more than an encouraging word, in others it involved
providing assistance to keep groups and the class on track.
Pedagogical content knowledge
Another important idea of teaching and learning suggested in the course is the concept
of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Lee Shulman who introduced the idea of PCK
to the learning community in the 1980s defined PCK as that special amalgam of
content and pedagogy that is uniquely the province of teachers, their own special form
of professional understanding (Shulman, 1987 as cited in Keast, 2014, slide 9). One
aspect of PCK, which was introduced in the unit is the idea that it takes time to develop
PCK and that one way to develop PCK is by teaching the same material to different
classes using different strategies. (Keast, 2014). The learning experience described
here gave me a glimpse of this process because I taught the same material to three
year 7 classes. For example, the first time I taught the lesson, we brainstormed the
whole process of all the separating techniques needed to separate the mixture. The
groups then went ahead and attempted the entire practical. The resultant confusion
showed me that I needed to break the practical down into steps, as described above.
Thus, both my classroom management and my instructional models and strategies were
improved through teaching the same material to different classes. This led to an
improvement of my general pedagogical knowledge, which Morine-Dershimmer and
Kent (1999) have identified as part of PCK.
How learning was monitored Learning was monitored during the lesson through my interactions with the class and
through my interactions with the groups and individuals as they conducted the practical.
This is still an aspect of my teaching, however, which needs improving. While I can say
that as a class, the students understood what they were doing. I could not with certainty
say that the learning of each student was effectively monitored during the lesson. This is
perhaps another of the multiple levels, which will take time to develop.
Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching
Page 4 of 5
Current thoughts on teaching practice The theoretical framework that informs my teaching practice at this time has been
succinctly stated as teaching is problematic (Loughran, 2010). On the one hand, so
many of the ideas, which have been put forward in this course such as telling not being
teaching, constructivism and the importance of PCK resonate with me, and I tried to
implement and/or develop them on my teaching rounds. Im very interested in
investigating prior knowledge and operating within students zone of proximal
development by identifying the difference between what a learner can do without help
and what he or she can do with help (Nagel, 2013). On the other hand, in my teaching
rounds, I observed a great deal of transmissive teaching as teachers seemed bound by
curricular and time constraints to get through the material. Maybe I wasnt fortunate
enough to observe a teacher with advanced PCK. Nevertheless, I will enter the
workforce as a teacher who believes that every student is capable of learning and that
my job is to facilitate that learning. I will constantly strive to improve my content
knowledge, my pedagogy and my understanding of my own strengths and challenges,
and the strengths and challenges of my students.
Jeffrey Segal: Reflection on teaching
Page 5 of 5
References Keast, S., & Marangio, K. (2014). Pancake Purpose [Video File]. Retrieved from
http://foedac.monash.edu/p2k5ud2p7ey/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMo
de=normal
Keast, S (2014) Semester 2 Lecture 6 Pedagogical Content Knowledge PowerPoint
Loughran, J. (2010). What expert teachers do. New York, NY: Routledge
Morshine-Dershimer, D. & Kent, T. (1999). The complex nature and source of teachers
pedagogical knowledge. In G. Gess-Newsome (ed.) Examining Pedagogical
Content Knowledge (pp.21-50). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers
Nagel, M. C. (2013). Student learning. In Teaching: making a difference (2nd ed.)
(pp.74-111). Milton, Queensland, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia